Our priest, Fr Victor, included this in the Sunday Church Bulletin. I think it is well worth the read and should bring in some comments and observations -

=============

The Orthodox Church of Tomorrow

There is an interesting phenomenon occurring in Orthodox Christianity in America today, and reflected powerfully in our seminaries. Seminaries are loaded almost exclusively with converts, reverts (cradle Orthodox who left the faith, and were re-converted to it again), and the sons and grandsons of clergy. I believe we are looking at the future of the American Orthodox Church -- today.

The notion that traditionally Orthodox ethnic groups (the group of 'our people' we hear so much about from our primates and hierarchs) are going to populate the ranks of the clergy, and therefore, the Church in the future is, frankly, a pipe dream. Orthodoxy, despite the failings of its leadership, has actually lived up to its own press. The truth of the Orthodox faith, as presented on paper, is actually being believed - by those who have no familial or historical connection with the Orthodox. These poor deluded souls (of which I count myself) actually believe what they are reading about the Orthodox faith, and expect the Church to act like, well, the Church. They refuse to accept the Church as a club of any kind, or closed circle kaffeeklatsch. No old world embassies will be tolerated for much longer - they will go the way of the dodo. No one will have to work against them; they will simply die from atrophy and neglect. The passing away of the Orthodox Church as ethnic club is already taking place. It will come to fruition in a short 10 years, 15 years in larger parishes.

This is a well known problem. Statistical studies taken a mere seven years ago predicted that within 10 years the Orthodox Church in the United States would for all practical purposes, no longer be viable. If nothing was done within five years (that's two years ago) the decline would be irreversible. Demographics determine destiny, as they say. As you may have imagined, not only was "nothing done," such reports were surreptitiously filed away, while the calls for a solution from clergy and laity alike only increased. Larger jurisdictions will, of course, have a little more time, but not a different result.

What we are looking at, of course, is of the highest concern to the hierarchy. They know, in their heart of hearts, that they cannot reverse this trend. Yet they fight a rearguard action, hoping against hope to forestall the historically inevitable movement toward an American Orthodox Church.

The laity has already moved on. Americans, generally, don't fall for very much strong arm intimidation or brow beating, don't go for bullying by insecure leaders, and certainly don't see the value of taking on and promoting someone else's ethnic culture. They care about the Gospel, and the Gospel does not require Slavonic or Koine Greek, or even English for that matter. The Gospel requires context, which is why it cannot be transmitted in any language unknown to the listener.

When we look at our seminaries, we are looking at the Church of Tomorrow, the Church twenty years from now. Indeed, this is the Church we are building today.

Twenty years from now, I anticipate we will see the following:

Vastly diminished parishes, both in size and number. There will be a few exceptions, (and they will be exceptional!) but for the most part, most current Orthodox parishioners will age and die, and have no one to replace them. Why? Because as they have taught the context of their culture, instead teaching the context of their faith. Some parishes will simply be merged with others. Many will close outright. A few will change how they do ministry, with a new vision of parochial ecclesiology. These newer parishes will be lighthouses of genuine Orthodox piety and experience. Some parishes, I believe, will actually be formed specifically, in the old fashion, by purchasing land, building a chapel or Temple in the midst of it, and parishioners building or buying homes around it. The Church will be the center of their lives, and many will come from far and wide to experience their way of life.

Publicly renowned Orthodox media and apologetic ministries. These ministries are the ones providing a living and powerful apologetic for the Orthodox faith in our culture (that is, our 21st Century life in the United States), and actually providing the Gospel in its proper context - engaged in society and the public arena. These will succeed in visibility and public awareness more than all the speeches before the U.N. and odd newspaper stories about Orthodox Easter or Folk Dance Festivals could ever do. In other words, the Orthodox Christian faith will become that most dangerous of all things - relevant to the lives of Americans, and known to all Americans as a genuinely American Christian entity.

More (and younger) bishops. If our current slate of bishops has been mostly a disappointment, reducing their number will only tighten this closed circle, making the hierarchy less and less accessible, and more and more immune to things like, oh, the needs and concerns of their flock. The process of selection for the episcopacy will contain a far more thorough investigation, and men with active homosexual tendencies, psychological problems, insecurities, or addictions will simply not make the cut. We aren't far from open persecution of Christians by secularists in this country, and we need bishops who know the score. With better bishops, no one will be able to 'buy' a priest out of a parish with a gift of cash. Conversely, parish councils will no longer be able to bully priests into staying out of their affairs, and will be required to get out of the restaurant/festival business and get into the soul saving business.

A very different demographic of clergy. Our priests will be composed of converts, reverts, and the sons and grandsons of venerable, long-suffering clergy. These men all know the score. They won't tolerate nonsense like homosexual clergy (especially bishops), women's ordination, or financial corruption. They will not tolerate the Church being regularly and unapologetically dishonored by her own clergy. Twenty years from now, these convert and revert priests will be sending life-long Orthodox men, a new cradle generation, en masse to our seminaries. They will be white, black, Asian, Polynesian, Hispanic, and everything in between. Fewer will be Russian, Greek, or any other traditionally Orthodox background.

Orthodox Biblical Studies. Orthodox Biblical scholarship will flourish, and will actually advance Biblical Studies, rather than tag along for the latest trends, staying a minimum safe distance back in case the latest theory tanks unexpectedly. Septuagint studies are already on the rise and Orthodox scholars will usurp the lead in this arena, establishing a powerful and lasting influence in Biblical Studies for decades to come. Orthodox higher education -- specifically in Biblical Studies in the Orthodox tradition -- will finally have a place at the doctoral level in the Western hemisphere, and it will become a thriving academic entity. The whole Church will feed on the gleanings of this new scholarship and Scriptural knowledge, preaching, and Biblical morality will invigorate the Church for generations.

A much higher moral standard from all clergy. The next twenty years will see a revival of practical ethics. Instead of trailing military or business ethics, the Church will, once again, require the highest standard of ethical and professional behavior from her clergy -- and they will respond! The clergy will not tolerate lying, cheating, or stealing and hold to account those who practice these vices. They will vigorously defend the honor of Christ's priesthood, and Christ's Church. I dare say, even the clergy will finally respect their own priesthood.

Vocations will explode. As a result of the elevated ethical standard publicly expected from the clergy, candidates in far greater numbers will flock to the priesthood. There will be very full classes, distance education, self-study and continuing education going on in every location. Education at a basal level will disappear, except in introductory parish classes. Clergy will powerfully articulate Orthodoxy to the faithful and to the culture around them. Personal opinion will no longer be the standard for clergy when articulating Orthodox ethics and morality. Our seminaries must become beacons for this teaching, and give up "training culture" once and for all. We will finally begin to penetrate our society, rather than go along for the ride like a tick on a dog's back.

Philanthropy will flow like the floodgates of heaven. Finally, the many Orthodox Christian philanthropists who annually give millions of dollars to secular institutions will finally find their own Church completely transparent, completely accountable, and worthy of their faith-building support. Let's face it, there is more than enough money in Orthodoxy right now to build hospitals, clinics, schools, colleges, universities, and a new Hagia Sophia right here in the United States. The reason this is not being done is because these philanthropists are intelligent men and women who do not trust the hierarchy to do the right thing with their millions. This will change in short order once it is shown that transparency doesn't destroy the Church, but strengthens it immeasurably. Frankly, I don't anticipate every jurisdiction to do this in the next twenty years, but those that are practicing transparency will emerge as the leaders in every arena of Church existence.Hope

This all may seem unlikely today, but it is coming.

How do I know this? For one thing, the last holdouts of corruption, Byzantine intrigue and phyletism (a fancy theological term for ethnic preference) are clinging desperately to a vision of the Church that is, quite frankly, dying fast. Oh, they are doing everything to shore up their power and influence, and busy serving their own needs, but their vision is dying. And where there is no vision, the people perish (Proverbs 29:18).

As frightening and disconcerting as it may seem to our leaders, they will learn that emerging from a cocoon, even a Byzantine cocoon, is not a bad thing. Orthodoxy is about to take flight on new beautiful wings. These are the birth pangs of a new era for Orthodoxy. God is giving us a time of freedom and light.

This new Orthodox Church will have a different face, will be ready for contemporary challenges, and will have begun to penetrate American society at every stage and on every level. This Church is the one that will be ready for the challenges of open persecution, fighting for the soul of every American, regardless of their genetic affiliation. This Church will be the one our grandchildren and great grandchildren will grow up in, looking back on the late 20th-early 21st century as a time of sentimental darkness from which burst forth the light of the Gospel. Let it begin.

Fr. John A. Peck is pastor of Prescott Orthodox Church in Prescott, Ariz.

======================

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

I'm just curious...I've never seen an Orthodox Church not named in honor of a saint or doctrine of the church. Why did they chose the name?

That's an excellent question. Their website states they are within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. In the parish directory of the GOC it is also listed as the Prescott Orthodox Church. Could it be that it's a mission parish at this time? Perhaps someone from the GOC can explain.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

"The whole Church will feed on the gleanings of this new scholarship and Scriptural knowledge, preaching, and Biblical morality will invigorate the Church for generations."

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

It's hard to take people seriously when they say things like this.

And Orthodox converts have been in seminaries for decades. They've been more than half of the membership for a long time. Converts are not immune to their problems, and I think this article insults the many good Orthodox priests who are cradles.

The Prescott Church website is very scant on its history, which leads me to suspect that they could be a Mission Church from St. Anthony's Monastery. Because St. Anthony's Monastery/Church is a canonical GOA Church, any Mission from said GOA Church is also canonical; hence, quick inclusion in GOA directories and the like. Given the controversy and legal issues pertaining to clergy associated with St. Anthony's, a low profile helps minimize the risk of people asking too many questions.

I honestly do not understand this sort of thing at all. There is obviously a total disrespect for the authorities of the church in place. What does not make sense to me is why a person would want to join the Orthodox Church if they just want to revolutionize everything?

Is not Orthodoxy about preservation of the faith as it has been handed down to us? Is not Orthodoxy about the authority of the Bishops and priests as given to them through the authority of the apostles?

As a non-Orthodox person myself who is strongly considering joining the church, this sort of horse crap is not going to get me to sign up. Because the Orthodoxy I read about in books wasn't full of smarmy revolutionaries who know better than those in authority above them and the Fathers of the Church in the past.

A great measure of appeal for me in joining the One True Church is just that; the ability to believe that the faith is wholly in tact and preserved. That nothing has prevailed against the Church. The Protestant world is full of self-important egoists. Protestantism is all about making your own claims, and deciding what is true for yourself in every instance. So armed alone with our Bibles, we Protestants are forced to construct our own faith-realities. This is the thing that is leading me home to the true Church.

The protestant paradigm has to construct the faith for each individual, and through one's personal interpretation form God in one's own image. In this reality we worship ourselves alone. We are God. But in the Orthodox faith, you are not alone in your battle for truth. Truth is revealed by Christ and preserved by his apostles and their successive authorities. I can let go of the battle to "decide" on what is right and wrong. I can turn to the Ancient Church and they will reveal to me the collective wisdom of millennia gone past.

So for these people, I'm not certain why they are involved if they think everything needs to be "statistically viable." Why are they the enlightened ones who can save the dying faith? The Ancient church cannot compromise herself. America doesn't know about her, so he has not had the opportunity to rape her of all that is pure and good. I say this because I know there are those who will want to come in and "renovate" everything. Away with the icons and up with the big screens. Why aren't their acoustic guitars with the choir? Don't they want to be relevant?

Sorry, that was kind of a tangent, but it was just the way the whole thing made me react. I am open to reproach and repentance on my behalf if I have appear arrogant or ignorant.

I honestly do not understand this sort of thing at all. There is obviously a total disrespect for the authorities of the church in place. What does not make sense to me is why a person would want to join the Orthodox Church if they just want to revolutionize everything?

Greedy and ambitious people are looking for new realms to conquer. The Orthodox Church is the final realm because Satan knows that nothing can bring down the Orthodox Church as long as Christ is supporting the Church. Remove Christ from the Church and Satan is emboldened with his task.

Is not Orthodoxy about preservation of the faith as it has been handed down to us? Is not Orthodoxy about the authority of the Bishops and priests as given to them through the authority of the apostles?

Yes to both. The laity also has a responsibility to ensure that the Hierarchy is maintaining the authority of the Apostles.

As a non-Orthodox person myself who is strongly considering joining the church, the sort of horse crap is not going to get me to sign up. Because the Orthodoxy I read about in books wasn't full of smarmy revolutionaries who know better than those in authority above them and the Fathers of the Church in the past.

Goes back to what I said about Satan operating against the Orthodox Church. Satan wants to turn people away from Christ.

A great measure of appeal for me in joining the One True Church is just that; the ability to believe that the faith is wholly in tact and preserved. That nothing has prevailed against the Church. The Protestant world is full of self-important egoists. Protestantism is all about making your own claims, and deciding what is true for yourself in every instance. So armed alone with our Bibles, we Protestants are forced to construct our own faith-realities. This is the thing that is leading me home to the true Church.

We do not have to construct the faith for ourselves, and through our personal interpretations form God in our own images. In this reality we worship ourselves alone. We are God. But in the Orthodox faith, you are not alone in your battle for truth. Truth is revealed by Christ and preserved by his apostles and their successive authorities. I can let go of the battle to "decide" on what is right and wrong. I can turn to the Ancient Church and they will reveal to me the collective wisdom of millennia gone past.

Stick to it - sounds like you know what you are practicing. The Priests and Hierarchs are not perfect; they never were and they never will.

So for these people, I'm not certain why they are involved if they think everything needs to be "statistically viable." Why are they the enlightened ones who can save the dying faith? The Ancient church cannot compromise herself. America doesn't know about her, so he has not had the opportunity to rape her of all that is pure and good. I say this because I know there are those who will want to come in and "renovate" everything. Away with the icons and up with the big screens. Why aren't their acoustic guitars with the choir? Don't they want to be relevant?

Sorry, that was kind of a tangent, but it was just the way the whole thing made me react. I am open to reproach and repentance on my behalf if I have appear arrogant or ignorant.

You made some very good points. I hope you continue on your path to the one true Faith.

The laity also has a responsibility to ensure that the Hierarchy is maintaining the authority of the Apostles.

I was just wondering if you could clarify what you meant by this statement. Did you mean that the laity are responsible in the sense that they have to keep corrupt leadership accountable, or that they have to be respectful and reverent of the authorities so that they have some "authority" to claim to the world? If this is the case then I would guess you mean that if none of the laity respect their superiors, then the church is dead and the authority of the apostles is lost. I had not considered that angle, but I would totally agree.

The laity also has a responsibility to ensure that the Hierarchy is maintaining the authority of the Apostles.

I was just wondering if you could clarify what you meant by this statement.

In the Orthodox Church, the Clergy and Laity are equal since Ordained Clergy used to be laity (just as the 12 Apostles had different careers/vocations). Because of the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Church, any Clergyman can trace his ordination back to any of the 12 Apostles. If the laity are voting with their feet by not attending Church, they are failing in their role as co-celebrants of the Liturgy with clergy. However, there are Orthodox laity who perform the work of Christ without setting foot in an Orthodox Church. If a Clergyman errs, someone has to point out the error and find ways to rectify error.

Did you mean that the laity are responsible in the sense that they have to keep corrupt leadership accountable,

The term "corrupt leadership" is somewhat misleading when applied to Orthodoxy. There are lay people serving on Councils who govern the day to day operations of an Archdiocese, a Metropolitanate, etc. The Hierarch is not CEO of His see nor is a priest CEO of a Church. A Parish Council cannot remove a Priest - only the Synod can reassign Clergy. If a Priest decides to take matters into his own hands, only the Hierarch, by way of Communication from the laity, can deal with an errant Priest. Using the context I just described, the laity is responsible for ensuring proper Orthodox praxis with the decision vested in the Hierarchs via Synod.

or that they have to be respectful and reverent of the authorities so that they have some "authority" to claim to the world?

There's a saying that anything in darkness sees the light of Truth. The only authority comes from God. There are many examples in the OT where the Jewish kings took their own authority and defied God - each of them received their just punishment for apostasy including Kings David and Solomon who were the only 2 to repent of those who were unrighteous.

If this is the case then I would guess you mean that if none of the laity respect their superiors, then the church is dead and the authority of the apostles is lost. I had not considered that angle, but I would totally agree.

I never said the statements in bold. The Orthodox Church will prevail against Satan and will never reach the state described in bold.

There's a saying that anything in darkness sees the light of Truth. The only authority comes from God. There are many examples in the OT where the Jewish kings took their own authority and defied God - each of them received their just punishment for apostasy including Kings David and Solomon who were the only 2 to repent of those who were unrighteous.

You sure you're not talking about King Manasseh rather than King Solomon? 2 Chronicles 33:10-17 details how King Manasseh repented of his sins of idolatry, and this repentance produced what we know as the Prayer of Manasseh (found in the OSB immediately after 2 Chronicles and prayed by Orthodox Christians during the service of Great Compline).

^ OK, Make it 3 Kings of Israel who repented from apostasy. Thank You! Manasseh's son, Amon, went back to his father's wicked ways and then some.

Holy Tradition has King Solomon repenting in Hades which was why I went from 2 to 3; Hence, King Solomon's depiction in one of the Resurrection icons. I've seen King Josiah used as the reference to the second Israelite King except that King Solomon built the Temple whose curtain was torn in half at the Crucifixion.

My first question to this priest would be: What seminaries are you TALKING ABOUT! If he is talking about Holy Cross (which is the seminary of his jurisdiction) I would have to say: WRONG! I would say MAYBE around a third of the SEMINARIANS are strictly converts. As for the other MAJOR seminaries (ie Vlads and Tikhons) he might have a case, but even there I would argue that there are many more parents who converted to orthodoxy and now sent their kids to seminaries, thereby making them CRADLE orthodox, not convert (in a strict sense). Holy Trinity is of course almost all Russians FROM Russia.

Also, I am not sure if he knows that there are actually 14 orthodox seminaries, including schools under the OO churches, which would mean that he would need to make a study of all of the OTHER seminaries (beyond the big 3/4). I can tell you right now, offhand I know of 5 other seminaries which are almost COMPLETELY cradle, FROM the country which they are associated with. His entire premise is based on a surmising, sweeping, unfounded perception.

My first question to this priest would be: What seminaries are you TALKING ABOUT! If he is talking about Holy Cross (which is the seminary of his jurisdiction) I would have to say: WRONG! I would say MAYBE around a third of the SEMINARIANS are strictly converts. As for the other MAJOR seminaries (ie Vlads and Tikhons) he might have a case, but even there I would argue that there are many more parents who converted to orthodoxy and now sent their kids to seminaries, thereby making them CRADLE orthodox, not convert (in a strict sense). Holy Trinity is of course almost all Russians FROM Russia.

Also, I am not sure if he knows that there are actually 14 orthodox seminaries, including schools under the OO churches, which would mean that he would need to make a study of all of the OTHER seminaries (beyond the big 3/4). I can tell you right now, offhand I know of 5 other seminaries which are almost COMPLETELY cradle, FROM the country which they are associated with. His entire premise is based on a surmising, sweeping, unfounded perception.

But you know it's easier to make grand claims and paint big strokes...

It is quite shocking to read. I had to read some things a few times to make sure I was understanding what he was saying.

I have not drawn any conclusions yet and do not want to 'react' to 'this-point' or 'that-point' as so many others have done so far. Its easy to rip apart or "throw rocks" at a word or phrase.

Also as this is a "cold-slap in the face" to many cradle OC's this subject certainly is quite scarey and as I have noticed many have reacted in this fear already so far. This to me helps to justify the point that is being proposed. I see alot of posts of a defensive nature.

Of course we do not need to defend what is not offended!

So defense is proof that the offense is real and that is exactly what the article seems to be proposing.

I think the article is well intentioned and speaks to us very honestly if not truthfully.

It is one of the most important posts I have read since I started following Orthodox Church Forums on line. I am not saying that I agree with all he is saying but that what he is 'proposing' is massive and vital....well worth exploring.

I work exclusively with converts in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. I have a lot in common with what the article is saying. I was shocked at how exact he is on key points. I mean right on point.

After I have had a chance to ponder his idea and get the full picture of his point I will probably post a more decisive opinion about this issue.

Forgive me for the length of this post except that I saw one passage from the sermon cited by the OP which raised the red flags....

Quote

How do I know this? For one thing, the last holdouts of corruption, Byzantine intrigue and phyletism (a fancy theological term for ethnic preference) are clinging desperately to a vision of the Church that is, quite frankly, dying fast. Oh, they are doing everything to shore up their power and influence, and busy serving their own needs, but their vision is dying. And where there is no vision, the people perish (Proverbs 29:18).

Proverbs 29:18 in KJV differs greatly from Proverbs 29:18 found in the Orthodox Study Bible. The Priest in the above Sermon cited the KJV. The Orthodox Study Bible has the passage as follows:

There shall be no interpreter of the law for a lawless nation, But he who guards the law is very blessed.

The KJV has Proverbs 29:18 as:

18Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

No consistent translation of Proverbs 29:18. Did this Priest find a passage to create doubt or perhaps did he cite from somewhere else and misattributed the quoting to Proverbs 29:18?

Where the above passage, translated to English, is consistent with the one found in the Orthodox Study Bible.

For someone who would say the following:

Quote

The laity has already moved on. Americans, generally, don't fall for very much strong arm intimidation or brow beating, don't go for bullying by insecure leaders, and certainly don't see the value of taking on and promoting someone else's ethnic culture. They care about the Gospel, and the Gospel does not require Slavonic or Koine Greek, or even English for that matter. The Gospel requires context, which is why it cannot be transmitted in any language unknown to the listener.

shows a lack of respect for language and knowledge. I would ask Met. Gerasimos how He feels about the Gospel requiring context without any understanding of language.

I know Fr. John personally so perhaps I am being a little sensitive, but do you not think that you are casting your own aspersions on Fr. John's intentions by saying the following:

Quote

Did this Priest find a passage to create doubt or perhaps did he cite from somewhere else and misattributed the quoting to Proverbs 29:18?

Perhaps Fr. John is fond of the KJV and therefore used that as a source for his quote? He's certainly not the only native Anglophone Orthodox priest to use the KJV.

Quote

For someone who would say the following:

Quote

The laity has already moved on. Americans, generally, don't fall for very much strong arm intimidation or brow beating, don't go for bullying by insecure leaders, and certainly don't see the value of taking on and promoting someone else's ethnic culture. They care about the Gospel, and the Gospel does not require Slavonic or Koine Greek, or even English for that matter. The Gospel requires context, which is why it cannot be transmitted in any language unknown to the listener.

shows a lack of respect for language and knowledge. I would ask Met. Gerasimos how He feels about the Gospel requiring context without any understanding of language.

I believe you are missing Fr. John's point. The Gospel is something that is lived and experienced. No language, not even Koine Greek, can take the place of an experiential Gospel. Language is a tool to help people understand the Gospel, but ultimately theosis is achieved through living the Gospel, not just talking/writing about it.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I know Fr. John personally so perhaps I am being a little sensitive, but do you not think that you are casting your own aspersions on Fr. John's intentions by saying the following:

Quote

Did this Priest find a passage to create doubt or perhaps did he cite from somewhere else and misattributed the quoting to Proverbs 29:18?

I know that some of the Chapters in Proverbs were rearranged by various translators. While I found the accurate passage for Proverbs 29:18 in the Orthodox Study Bible, that passage didn't bear any resemblance to the passage quoted from the KJV. Father John basically said in his sermon that Orthodoxy in America, as we know it, lacks vision and will die off and only His proposal can save Orthodoxy from its "fate."

shows a lack of respect for language and knowledge. I would ask Met. Gerasimos how He feels about the Gospel requiring context without any understanding of language.

I believe you are missing Fr. John's point. The Gospel is something that is lived and experienced. No language, not even Koine Greek, can take the place of an experiential Gospel. Language is a tool to help people understand the Gospel, but ultimately theosis is achieved through living the Gospel, not just talking/writing about it.

Why is it necessary to keep mentioning Koine Greek? What did they speak during Christ's time? What conqueror left that language behind?

If he is talking about Holy Cross (which is the seminary of his jurisdiction) I would have to say: WRONG! I would say MAYBE around a third of the SEMINARIANS are strictly converts.

I think in my incoming class we had over 1/3 (I think it was close to 1/2); in the classes I saw graduate while a student (2004, 05, and 06) the number was over 1/3. Heck, I think the school even admits that nearly 1/2 of the students admitted to the SOT became Orthodox later in life (i.e. after childhood).

I know that some of the Chapters in Proverbs were rearranged by various translators. While I found the accurate passage for Proverbs 29:18 in the Orthodox Study Bible, that passage didn't bear any resemblance to the passage quoted from the KJV. Father John basically said in his sermon that Orthodoxy in America, as we know it, lacks vision and will die off and only His proposal can save Orthodoxy from its "fate."

I really fail to see how Fr. John puts for this observations on how he sees things heading as the "only proposal". He is merely commenting on trends that he has observed. By all means, disagree with his observations. I just think you're reading into Fr. John's intentions.

Quote

Why is it necessary to keep mentioning Koine Greek? What did they speak during Christ's time? What conqueror left that language behind?

It gets mentioned because of the oft-heard exhortation to "go back to the Greek" when discussing the meaning of the written Gospel. Fr. John's point, once again, is that the Gospel transcends language, but it is very easy, and very human, to go back to the old "This translation is faulty" canard.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I really fail to see how Fr. John puts for this observations on how he sees things heading as the "only proposal". He is merely commenting on trends that he has observed. By all means, disagree with his observations. I just think you're reading into Fr. John's intentions.

It gets mentioned because of the oft-heard exhortation to "go back to the Greek" when discussing the meaning of the written Gospel. Fr. John's point, once again, is that the Gospel transcends language, but it is very easy, and very human, to go back to the old "This translation is faulty" canard.

So, when Christ said not to add or subtract one iota from the Gospel, I guess He wasn't thinking about language translation issues?

If he is talking about Holy Cross (which is the seminary of his jurisdiction) I would have to say: WRONG! I would say MAYBE around a third of the SEMINARIANS are strictly converts.

I think in my incoming class we had over 1/3 (I think it was close to 1/2); in the classes I saw graduate while a student (2004, 05, and 06) the number was over 1/3. Heck, I think the school even admits that nearly 1/2 of the students admitted to the SOT became Orthodox later in life (i.e. after childhood).

I am willing to grant you this point, because I never really got into the nitty gritty of what exact background people were. HOWEVER, I would wager that most of the people you are refering to were born into orthodox parents, who probably converted. I got that sense more than anything.

IN general though, my statement still stands. He is making an assumption based on a refutable claim. If he wants to talk about trends in his parish or community, perhaps even his metropolis, then maybe his claims would have more credance. However, when was the last time he was AT a seminary, much less did any kind of stat work? I just think it's unfounded.

My first question to this priest would be: What seminaries are you TALKING ABOUT! If he is talking about Holy Cross (which is the seminary of his jurisdiction) I would have to say: WRONG! I would say MAYBE around a third of the SEMINARIANS are strictly converts. As for the other MAJOR seminaries (ie Vlads and Tikhons) he might have a case, but even there I would argue that there are many more parents who converted to orthodoxy and now sent their kids to seminaries, thereby making them CRADLE orthodox, not convert (in a strict sense). Holy Trinity is of course almost all Russians FROM Russia.

Also, I am not sure if he knows that there are actually 14 orthodox seminaries, including schools under the OO churches, which would mean that he would need to make a study of all of the OTHER seminaries (beyond the big 3/4). I can tell you right now, offhand I know of 5 other seminaries which are almost COMPLETELY cradle, FROM the country which they are associated with. His entire premise is based on a surmising, sweeping, unfounded perception.

But you know it's easier to make grand claims and paint big strokes...

Was this a little banter at the way I was talking, or were you just adding fuel to my fire? I have no problem admitting i'm wrong or a hypocrite, just trying to keep myself in check Padre. lol. Seriously though, i'd love an answer. Always was a big fan of public admonition (seriously). Thanks!

I thought the subject (and this thread) was about the very moving article Fr. John wrote?

Any thoughts?

I am very interested in what we all have to say about what he is 'intending' to put across.

We should not try to avoid the point by barking (maybe even semantically) about his choice of words and scripture and how many people 'we' see at seminary and so on.

I think regardless (although the points being made are valid indeed and have some part how we view the point at hand)..never-the-less the subject of his article is clear.

That's just it. In my opinion, what he is INTENDING to put accross is that all pro-Greek, anti-english, non-progressive, non-liberal seminarians/theologians/people are not progressive enough, or "with the program" or "with the gospel" or whatever you might want to call it, and therefore not really Orthodox Christians, and therefore are making huge mistakes in every aspect of life, and need to come to the light and be enlightened by the new and best way of understanding everything.

ABSOLUTELY I am being ridiculous i that statement (above), yet at the same time I would say that this is how I felt reading his sermon. I felt like there was no way out for cradle orthodox except to accept his theology and his gospel, and that's it. It left no room for dialogue nor hope, nor a way out. It felt like "change or be changed" which I do NOT believe is orthodox.

I also felt like he was saying: when are we finally going to change as a church to the real understanding of church. And I would say, how do YOU know what the real understanding of church is? However, I follow that statement IMMEDIATELY up with the fact that we have discussed this topic AD NAUSIUM, so I hope that the discussion does not disintegrate to that.

Anyway, I believe that the subject of the article is NOT clear, and that he is hiding behind big wording and circular reasoning, in order to convolute how he actually feels. (again being a little blatant). We are barking at his words because his premiss is based on these words. they are not just nit-picking or semantics. He says that seminaries are teaching in a phyletist manner to non-cradle students. This begs OBVIOUS questions like: which seminaries, how do you know, who are you talking about, and CAN YOU JUST MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT WITHOUT VALIDATING IT? I submit that he cannot. However, if you want to talk about his INTENT, I have laid out some thoughts in my opening remarks. I hope you DO take them seriously on the level that: you never know, he might actually be THINKING these things, and how do I know that he is not? (beyond calling him and asking...which you never know, might be a good idea).

Was this a little banter at the way I was talking, or were you just adding fuel to my fire? I have no problem admitting i'm wrong or a hypocrite, just trying to keep myself in check Padre. lol. Seriously though, i'd love an answer. Always was a big fan of public admonition (seriously). Thanks!

I was agreeing with you and saying that it's easier for the author to make up generalizations than to actually do what you did and lay out some stats

Was this a little banter at the way I was talking, or were you just adding fuel to my fire? I have no problem admitting i'm wrong or a hypocrite, just trying to keep myself in check Padre. lol. Seriously though, i'd love an answer. Always was a big fan of public admonition (seriously). Thanks!

I was agreeing with you and saying that it's easier for the author to make up generalizations than to actually do what you did and lay out some stats

If he is talking about Holy Cross (which is the seminary of his jurisdiction) I would have to say: WRONG! I would say MAYBE around a third of the SEMINARIANS are strictly converts.

I think in my incoming class we had over 1/3 (I think it was close to 1/2); in the classes I saw graduate while a student (2004, 05, and 06) the number was over 1/3. Heck, I think the school even admits that nearly 1/2 of the students admitted to the SOT became Orthodox later in life (i.e. after childhood).

Being one of those 'converts' in the classes being discussed, I can vouch that well over a third of the incoming seminarians were converts.

And it is unknown the proportion of those who were 'stealth converts'---people like myself who were converts but very often even 'cradles' thought I belonged with them, and were surprised when they found out I actually was not Greek.

But, my thoughts on the article is that Fr John contradicts himself repeatedly...I mean, why will there be 'less and smaller' parishes, but more and younger bishops along with an explosion of vocations? he needs to argue more persuasively for these conclusions.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

If he is talking about Holy Cross (which is the seminary of his jurisdiction) I would have to say: WRONG! I would say MAYBE around a third of the SEMINARIANS are strictly converts.

I think in my incoming class we had over 1/3 (I think it was close to 1/2); in the classes I saw graduate while a student (2004, 05, and 06) the number was over 1/3. Heck, I think the school even admits that nearly 1/2 of the students admitted to the SOT became Orthodox later in life (i.e. after childhood).

Being one of those 'converts' in the classes being discussed, I can vouch that well over a third of the incoming seminarians were converts.

And it is unknown the proportion of those who were 'stealth converts'---people like myself who were converts but very often even 'cradles' thought I belonged with them, and were surprised when they found out I actually was not Greek.

But, my thoughts on the article is that Fr John contradicts himself repeatedly...I mean, why will there be 'less and smaller' parishes, but more and younger bishops along with an explosion of vocations? he needs to argue more persuasively for these conclusions.

Does anyone have any idea why Fr. John Peck's article has been removed at his request from the originating website and all the other sites that had linked it? I just tried doing a search and it's gone. That article, whether you agree with it or not, was the hottest thing to hit American Orthodoxy in a good long while. I can't understand why it has been taken out of the public sphere.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2008, 10:15:47 PM by TinaG »

Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.

Does anyone have any idea why Fr. John Peck's article has been removed at his request from the originating website and all the other sites that had linked it? I just tried doing a search and it's gone. That article, whether you agree with it or not, was the hottest thing to hit American Orthodoxy in a good long while. I can't understand why it has been taken out of the public sphere.

I'm just curious...I've never seen an Orthodox Church not named in honor of a saint or doctrine of the church. Why did they chose the name?

That's an excellent question. Their website states they are within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. In the parish directory of the GOC it is also listed as the Prescott Orthodox Church. Could it be that it's a mission parish at this time? Perhaps someone from the GOC can explain.

Orthodoc

Well, their website does say the "Mile High Mission" And the photo gallery looks like a mission parish too.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I'm just curious...I've never seen an Orthodox Church not named in honor of a saint or doctrine of the church. Why did they chose the name?

That's an excellent question. Their website states they are within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. In the parish directory of the GOC it is also listed as the Prescott Orthodox Church. Could it be that it's a mission parish at this time? Perhaps someone from the GOC can explain.

Orthodoc

Well, their website does say the "Mile High Mission" And the photo gallery looks like a mission parish too.

I'm just curious...I've never seen an Orthodox Church not named in honor of a saint or doctrine of the church. Why did they chose the name?

That's an excellent question. Their website states they are within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. In the parish directory of the GOC it is also listed as the Prescott Orthodox Church. Could it be that it's a mission parish at this time? Perhaps someone from the GOC can explain.

Orthodoc

Well, their website does say the "Mile High Mission" And the photo gallery looks like a mission parish too.

What does them having a mission parish have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?

Ask person I was replying to...the side question was on odd name. Testy, aren't you?

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Well, their website does say the "Mile High Mission" And the photo gallery looks like a mission parish too.

What does them having a mission parish have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?

I've heard of more than a couple of Orthodox mission parishes referred to as the [insert town name] parish. Also, one of the mission parishes from my Ruthenian Catholic parish goes by the name of the "Hagerstown misson".

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Well, their website does say the "Mile High Mission" And the photo gallery looks like a mission parish too.

What does them having a mission parish have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?

I've heard of more than a couple of Orthodox mission parishes referred to as the [insert town name] parish. Also, one of the mission parishes from my Ruthenian Catholic parish goes by the name of the "Hagerstown misson".

I think the point of the aside was to verify the status of the origin of the OP's article - whether it came out of a canonical parish or not.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 04:06:30 PM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Does anyone have any idea why Fr. John Peck's article has been removed at his request from the originating website and all the other sites that had linked it? I just tried doing a search and it's gone. That article, whether you agree with it or not, was the hottest thing to hit American Orthodoxy in a good long while. I can't understand why it has been taken out of the public sphere.

I am not sure of the term "hottest" but I feel that it has something very important to offer the orthodox universe in America.

It seems worth thinking about, talking about and praying about.

The experessions he uses and how he tailored his back-up and examples are rather challenging leaving his main point open to 'blasts of vehement, redicule and outrage'. That is unfortunate for Fr. Peck and those he is trying to reach.

I think he is trying to paint a very simple picture of a very broad landscape. That is not easy to do at all.

The way he wrote it it seems that the reader would have to be open to his logic and perspective before reading the article to fully appreciate the intended point. Which is OK as long as such persons are the only ones who will be reading the article. But for the general population the article needed to be focused in a very different way in my opinion.

I think the point of the aside was to verify the status of the origin of the OP's article - whether it came out of a canonical parish or not.

Answer to first question: The mission is canonical since it is listed on GOA's directories.

Jackpot, the Church's photo directory gives away St. Anthony's Monastery as origin of said Church. Look at the final set of pictures and notice that the ground breaking takes place at a location in the middle of nowhere.Prescott Orthodox Church Picture Gallery

The second question is: where did they come from? Well, the Church property is owned by a couple who lives in Bullhead City, AZ. The couple paid $700K for the property in March 2005. Said couple owes $7,300 in property taxes for a non-profit religious institution.

I think the point of the aside was to verify the status of the origin of the OP's article - whether it came out of a canonical parish or not.

Answer to first question: The mission is canonical since it is listed on GOA's directories.

Jackpot, the Church's photo directory gives away St. Anthony's Monastery as origin of said Church. Look at the final set of pictures and notice that the ground breaking takes place at a location in the middle of nowhere.Prescott Orthodox Church Picture Gallery

The second question is: where did they come from? Well, the Church property is owned by a couple who lives in Bullhead City, AZ. The couple paid $700K for the property in March 2005. Said couple owes $7,300 in property taxes for a non-profit religious institution.

I wouldn't be so quick to suggest they are under the spell of St Anthony's--most of the stuff that comes out of St Anthony's is vastly different than the feel I get from this guy.

I wouldn't be so quick to suggest they are under the spell of St Anthony's--most of the stuff that comes out of St Anthony's is vastly different than the feel I get from this guy.

I cited two examples of Mission parishes in the GOA Metropolis of New Jersey which have yet to be included on GOA directories while this Prescott Church, in existence less than 2 years, has a GOA directory listing and the funds to build a Church?

When a priest quotes that ethnic Orthodoxy (e.g. the kind of Orthodoxy emulated by St. Anthony's and her 16 like minded entities) is dead in 10-15 years and his "solution" bears a striking resemblance to the St. Anthony's campus (note, I'm restraining myself from using more sinister religious figures for comparison), what is my Jurisdiction thinking and if ethnic Orthodoxy is truly on life support, let AHEPA support all the Hellenic functions like parades, politicizing, et al.

I think the point of the aside was to verify the status of the origin of the OP's article - whether it came out of a canonical parish or not.

Answer to first question: The mission is canonical since it is listed on GOA's directories.

Jackpot, the Church's photo directory gives away St. Anthony's Monastery as origin of said Church. Look at the final set of pictures and notice that the ground breaking takes place at a location in the middle of nowhere.Prescott Orthodox Church Picture Gallery

The second question is: where did they come from? Well, the Church property is owned by a couple who lives in Bullhead City, AZ. The couple paid $700K for the property in March 2005. Said couple owes $7,300 in property taxes for a non-profit religious institution.

I wouldn't be so quick to suggest they are under the spell of St Anthony's--most of the stuff that comes out of St Anthony's is vastly different than the feel I get from this guy.

I would also note that until recently, Fr. John was a priest in the OCA and only recently moved to Arizona. Previously, he was the pastor at Holy Assumption Orthodox Church in Canton, OH.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I wouldn't be so quick to suggest they are under the spell of St Anthony's--most of the stuff that comes out of St Anthony's is vastly different than the feel I get from this guy.

I cited two examples of Mission parishes in the GOA Metropolis of New Jersey which have yet to be included on GOA directories while this Prescott Church, in existence less than 2 years, has a GOA directory listing and the funds to build a Church?

Prices are vastly cheaper in AZ than NJ. I am not trying to be argumentative, but that could be a factor.

Quote

When a priest quotes that ethnic Orthodoxy (e.g. the kind of Orthodoxy emulated by St. Anthony's and her 16 like minded entities) is dead in 10-15 years and his "solution" bears a striking resemblance to the St. Anthony's campus (note, I'm restraining myself from using more sinister religious figures for comparison), what is my Jurisdiction thinking and if ethnic Orthodoxy is truly on life support, let AHEPA support all the Hellenic functions like parades, politicizing, et al.

I'm sorry, I don't get what you are saying?

Are you saying that the guy is influenced by St Athony's, or, are you saying he wants to become the next "St Anthony's" but for converts? Or something entirely different?

I'm just curious...I've never seen an Orthodox Church not named in honor of a saint or doctrine of the church. Why did they chose the name?

That's an excellent question. Their website states they are within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. In the parish directory of the GOC it is also listed as the Prescott Orthodox Church. Could it be that it's a mission parish at this time? Perhaps someone from the GOC can explain.

Orthodoc

Well, their website does say the "Mile High Mission" And the photo gallery looks like a mission parish too.

What does them having a mission parish have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?

Ask person I was replying to...the side question was on odd name. Testy, aren't you?

Sorry, I didn't mean to come accross testy, I was not at all. I wasn't thinking/typing/feeling all that great when I wrote it. I DEFINITELY apologize. You did not deserve my mental mistakes. Forgive my brazenness.

All I was really trying to get at was the concept that just because it is a mission parish, does not mean that it necessarily thinks, acts, behaves or is run in a certain or particular way. Missions does not equal thinking a certain way, and thinking a certain way does not equal missions. I should have just said that in the very beginning, but as I explained above...it was a bad day for me.

Again, please forgive me, I really didn't want to disrupt you or the thread. Just had a bad day...sorry for taking it out on you.